This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:01:22 +0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-78024-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024
>
> Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keywords| |patch
>
> --- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to myself from comment #3)
> > I'll have a look later today, but if someone is able to do so now, please
> > verify whether <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01478.html>
> > does fix this issue?
>
> It does. Asking once again: OK to commit?
>
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Well, must be another missing BB_VISITED clearing then.
>
> I wonder why you didn't see that regression in your testing?
I did but didn't thought it was my patch (oacc should be unrelated).
I also assumed the posted patch was already committed (as I approved it)